Singapore Democrats

Let me state at the outset that I don't see eye to eye with Gopalan Nair on everything politically. But I would like to think of myself as not having an all-or-nothing attitude towards people either - everybody has his/her strengths and weakness.

My first comment here is that the title of this article is a biased one; the writer must have filtered out - at least mentally - that category of comments,including those like mine in two different venues, which have been duly censored on that bastion of free speech called The Online Citizen (TOC) - that expressed appreciation for the point that Nair was making.

Indeed the TOC article by Choo Zeng Yi referenced in this blog entry contained this statement:

"Whatever political point Mr Nair was trying to make by his despicable joke is likely to be overshadowed by the backlash against Mr Nair from ordinary Singaporeans."

I had mentioned in one of my censored posts in TOC that the writer is as guilty of contributing to the backlash by overshadowing The Point that Nair was making, and which only the more politically astute netizens could see.

This then brings us to the question: What was The point that Nair was driving at?

My own reading of this incident is that Nair wanted Singaporeans, including the many who want to see the last of Lee Kuan Yew, to self-reflect on the certainty that is the death of Lee Kuan Yew as it is with mine by observing their own reactions and especially to consider what they think will happen to Singapore in the event of Lee Kuan Yew's death.

The reactions pre-revelation were predictable:

1. There will be riots. (Someone posted a news story about SBS buses being set on fire to suggest this.) And the most infantile part is the insinuation that the riots are linked to opposition elements.(Huh? Wouldn't they be out partying?)

This is the Big Myth promulgated by fascists that will justify more authoritarian rule by the PAP,no less.

2. Our system will collapse, as evident by the evaporation of the value of our assets especially our near-liquid and non-liquid ones.(What good has 50 years of Lee Kuan Yew-and-PAP rule done if that our much vaunted system which many still believe is due entirely to Lee Kuan Yew, if it cannot weather the passing of its supposed architect? Could he be said to have designed a system that outlives the people who workit then?)

Connected to point #2, there were also some -staunch PAP supporters notably - who openly wrote about making preparations to flee the country. In all likelihood after having milked the system to the fullest self-serving degree.

If democracy means the maximizing of participation in the political process using free speech as a problem-solving tool, then I welcome this act by Nair, who has been roundly denounced as "liar", "prankster", and "fraudster".

It was a stroke of political genius on Nair's part and could be pulled of only by the politically astute. (BTW, an American pranskter also pulled a hoax about Tom Cruise being involved in a motorcycleaccident on his way to the Oscars on Sunday, sparking off a wild goosechase for reporters,though I fail to see any point that this would have made - part and parcel of democracy.)

Nair used a hoax to make a political point. Will it contribute to the problem solving process that Nair intended it to, conciously or unconsciously?

I am absolutely certain it has and will continue to, for those who need the time to be able to take a second look at this incident in retrospect.

Nair has held up a mirror to Singaporeans and the ugliness that is the PAP-fed Singapore was evident.

While the above post focussed on the reactions of Singaporeans before Nair's revelation that his blog was a hoax, this post deals with my observations on the reactions post-revelation with a particular focus on reactions by those who have set themselves up some kind of authority: bloggers, including thoase quoted in this article.

Their reactions fall into one of these three categories:

1. "I've been tricked". (This includes those who regretted that this was a hoax.)

2. "Oh, my God. What will they think of us (those who are critical of the PAP government)."

Evidence:

a) The TOC article that stated, "TOC has been a consistent proponent of community moderation, arguing that the abuse of free speech in the form of spreading deliberate misinformation has the potential to cement the public’s perception of the internet as untrustworthy."

b) Ng E Jay's article stating, "It is imbeciles like him that allow the government an opportunity to unfairly tar bloggers as unreliable rumour-mongers who are unable to self-regulate,"

3. "Oh, my God. What will they think of us (those who are critical of the PAP government)."

Evidence:

a) The same TOC article which claims, "...it provides the Government with the best excuse to regulate the internet to prevent such misinformation from spreading."

While #2 and #3 are not unwarranted fears, they are indicative of what I have previously talked about here: internalized (political) oppression.

They neatly sums up the state of the nation's collective health.

Incidentally, TOC censored my posts containing exactly the points I have re-written now above.

However, in the offending post that resulted in ALL my posts being censored by TOC, I did ask this question at the stage when the more than 80-comments discussion was overwhelminging condemning of Nair - the tone that the TOC article itself had set for its readers to folllow in: "How much of these reactions are due to Gopalan Nair being Indian?"

That was all.

Which of their moderation policies could I have been deeemed to be in violation of?

The unstated one that contributors are meant to be reverential to the utmost to TOC and its writers, and perhaps to the subject of the hoax istelf, Lee Kuan Yew?

Honestly, does it even matter whether LKY has got a heart attack or not whether he is dead or not. What matters is the people not just one person who had claimed to be the people. My neighbour suffered heart attack last year, no one made it an issue. Hundreds suffer more pain than LKY(on a second thought does he even know what is pain) why is it then that his problems become ours. By any standards rumors are not defamatory unless it affects one's social standing in society so Gopalan Nair's hoax should be simply dismissed with a pinch of salt. It does not affect anyone so no issue.

From my own reading of the angry reactions of bloggers and other netizens to Gopalan Nair's hoax and who all purport to be The Opposition - to imply that they stand for the changing of the Lee Kuan Yew-initiated political culture in Singapore - other revelations dawned on me about how entrenched, but worse, faithful that these commenters are to the PAP's political culture.

After the AWARE EOGM, there was much displeasure and anger at how rambuctiously the real AWARE supporters had proceeded with the session.

But, it was precisely that anger expressed at the Christian Taliban steeplejackers at the EOGM which helped others not present at the event to dissipate the anger that they themselves had harboured.

That's exactly why I did not go out to the streets and start sexual orientation riots; my own anger was channeled through the vent that those present at the EOGM facilitated.

That's the power of democracy and it's ability to prevent law and order problems from taking place.

I am also positive that as a result of the same rambuctious AWARE EOGM that the Christian Taliban themselves were forced to be introspective and begin the important process of self-questioning about their religious culture.

And what's so wrong about that? Or that we don't have sexual orientation riots on our streets on a regular basis?

That's what a true democracy is all about: the maximizing of participation in politics with the objective of using free speech as part of the problem-solving process for the nation.

Even the angry have a right to their participation in politics because their anger gives us important information that helps us to understand the problem that needs solving.

The anger expressed at GN's hoax was no different from that which was expressed about the conduct of the AWARE EOGM.

That anger, just as it was in the anger over the conduct at the AWARE EOGM, was about the absence of the highest of reverence and the utmost decorum towards your political opponents in the conduct of politics in Singapore.

Exactly like the reverence and decorum demanded of everyone in the Emperor's court.

That's the political culture that has been perpetuated in Singapore, and that's what all those in opposition angry at Gopalan Nair's hoax have internalized and continue to perpetuate on their Emperor's behalf.

Yet, it is also GN's hoax that is benefitting the larger problem-solving that public life is all about; it has equally shown up the deep insecurities that Singaporeans have and provided an opportunity to do something about those insecurities.

Hoaxers who have a political point to make have a right to participation in the political process in a democracy.

Hoaxers, along with the angry, have value to add to politics.

Yet the immediate reactions from the pretenders to authority not only deny it, but try to prevent that value from being added; the authorities - along with the false authorities - criminalize them instead. But from the point of view of criminology, neither the conduct at the AWARE EOGM nor the GN hoax qualify as crimes.

The GN hoax will definitely go down as an equally pivotal event as the AWARE steeplejacking did and has; the reverberations from both - political liberalism on both counts - will continue to be felt for a long time.

It has done so much more for the opposition - the true opposition - than any other event has ever managed to.

And thank goodness for that.